find_stations_near_address

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing core behaviors: sorting by distance, optional type filtering with comma-separation, and parameter ranges. It does not mention potential error handling or output structure, but the primary operational traits are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tightly focused: a single sentence defining purpose followed by a clean, well-formatted arg list. Every line provides necessary information with no filler, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, the main behavior, and even edge constraints (radius/limit ranges). It stops short of a 5 by not describing the return structure or edge-case behavior (e.g., no results), but it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each one with examples, allowed values, defaults, and ranges. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Find') and resource ('public safety facilities') with clear scope ('nearest to a US street address') and even includes sorting behavior ('sorted by distance'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_stations_near_coordinates or get_station.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the tool is for address-based queries ('US street address'), providing strong context for when to choose it over the coordinates-based sibling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.